Muhammad also rejects the story of Jesus that was being told at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. What exactly are those Jews accused of?

Not sure if I follow what you're asking as it relates to the topic. Muslims do not accept that Jesus claimed to his people that he was the Son of God or otherwise divine or worthy of worship (Q5:117), so that's not what they would have rejected him for.

But they rejected him nonetheless as they often did with prior prophets. The Qur'an notes their general disbelief and rejection of Jesus (AS) (see for example Q3:52-56, Q4:155-57, 5:110). They cursed his miracles as sorcery and his mother as an adultress, and tried to have him crucified.

Does this help?

"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE

Thank you, Shenango. I think I have more than made my point. In fact, it's even worse than I thought, now that you've pointed out the Antisemitism in which this Hadith is rooted.

As I've pointed out many times, most non-Muslim read the Qur'an from the perspective "why did Muhammad write these verses?" You have to understand that that is our perspective. I also try to read from the perspective "why would Allah send these verses?"

From the first perspective, Muhammad could have chosen the Jewish view of Jesus or he could have chosen the Christian view of Jesus. However, he chose, instead, to invent his own view.

From the second perspective... well, there are numerous thread where Christians argue that it doesn't make any sense to believe that God gave us the Gospel and then 600 years later He revealed a substantially different story.

The inescapable conclusion is that, for political purposes, Muhammad needed to differentiate his new religion from both Judaism and Christianity. One of the misconceptions that modern Muslims like to push on the West is that Islam is "almost the same as Judaism and Christianity", "it's just a small step". "We all believe in the same God". Yet, the verses you cite in your post disproves this. The verses show just how important it was to Muhammad in creating his identity to censure the Jews and the Christians. We call the censure of Judaism for political purposes "Antisemitism".

This is a big problem.

Men do you harm either because they fear you or because they hate you.

NB. When you have the time, watch if you wish a short Youtube video of Rabbi Tovia Singer answering this question; whether the Qur'an is antisemitic.

Yesterday,a 6-year old Palestinian girl, Dina was hit by a settler's car. and she was in serious condition.

When I googled for some details before a while, i noticed that other similar accidents with near details were retrieved, but around other settlements and areas in Palestine. I was about to confuse them.

The Palestinian boy, Muhammad Abu Khdair was kidnapped while waiting for his friends, turtured and burnt alive. but not before he was also forced forced to drink petrol.

Is this antisemitism?

Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace upon the messengers. And praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds. 37:180-182

now that you've pointed out the Antisemitism in which this Hadith is rooted.

The hadith is not rooted in Antisemitism. It is directed to the Muslims, basically warning them not to repeat the mistakes of their forerunners in faith/belief, the Jews. If you think the Prophet's indirect reference to the Jews is still Antisemitic, you're free to your opinion.

Originally posted by Non Believer

Muhammad could have chosen the Jewish view of Jesus or he could have chosen the Christian view of Jesus. However, he chose, instead, to invent his own view.

While I must disagree that the Prophet (PBUH) invented anything, yes, the Islamic view of Jesus (AS) has been likened by scholars as a kind of middle way between the views of Judaism and Christianity. Jews reject him altogether, while Christians worship him. Islam accepts him as both authentic prophet and Jewish Messiah, while denying Christian claims of his divinity and right to worship alongside God. Now you're learning.

Originally posted by Non Believer

From the second perspective... well, there are numerous thread where Christians argue that it doesn't make any sense to believe that God gave us the Gospel and then 600 years later He revealed a substantially different story.

And that's fine and dandy as their view, but from a Muslim perspective their view is simply untenable and that'll always be the crux of our disagreement with them. The devil is always in the details and that's where in our Muslim view their story starts to break down into incoherence, with significant contradictions and logical gaps.

Furthermore, I just demonstrated in a thread in the IR forum that history records that one of the earliest sects of Christians that was very close to Jesus' time and place held very similar views of him as Muslims, and significantly divergent from what later came to be known as Christianity.

I can go into this further with you, but I strongly suspect that's not where your interest lies. The salient point here is that we aren't claiming that a book that came 600 years later is a better historical/human witness to Jesus (AS). We aren't defying logic, because in our view our book comes directly from God, who beats out any human witness, even millennia later.

Originally posted by Non Believer

The inescapable conclusion is that, for political purposes, Muhammad needed to differentiate his new religion from both Judaism and Christianity.

He did work hard to establish the independence of Islam from Judaism and Christianity yes, even our sources attest, but it was not for political purposes.

Step back for a minute and look at it from our perspective. You have a new religion coming on the block that yet claims the same Abrahamic tree that Judaism and Christianity, so there's going to be rivalry there by default. Why is a new religion needed? Is there something wrong with the other two? How can you start a new religion in the same vein without having anything competitive to say to the preceeding monotheisms that claim the same heritage? You have to call them out on the errors that distinguish your path as better or worthier to follow. You can call it "politics" if you like, but it is theological politics through and through.

Originally posted by Non Believer

One of the misconceptions that modern Muslims like to push on the West is that Islam is "almost the same as Judaism and Christianity", "it's just a small step". "We all believe in the same God".

Everything is relative and keeping proper perspective. For most Westerners, especially in the U.S. and Canada, Muslims might as well be Martians because they don't know anything about them. For centuries Western Christendom, even after the Enlightenment an invisible wall kept out Muslims as a foreign "other". Western non-Muslims are being given a simplified explanation just to be able to place Muslims in their mental spectrum of religions. That placement is not inaccurate.

When compared with Hindus and Buddhists, for example, the resemblances between Islam and Judaism and Christianity, but especially the former, are practically uncanny. Hinduism and Buddhists have almost nothing in common with the Abrahamic religions. To classify Islam with these two plainly makes no sense.

Originally posted by Non Believer

We call the censure of Judaism for political purposes "Antisemitism".This is a big problem.

Judaism's OWN SCRIPTURES censure the Jews for their lack of faith and uncooperativeness. If you're ready to call the Torah antisemitic then I will happily accept your characterization of Islam, as the Qur'anic and Hadith criticism of Jews are truly not original to Islam. Jesus (AS) himself accused the Jews of killing and stoning their prophets in the New Testament.

The fact is that Muslims harbor no long-term ill-will against Jews and the Qur'an invites them back into the fold numerous times. More importantly, Islam lacks a "Christkiller" demagoguery narrative that was used by Christendom to perpetrate all kinds of atrocities on the Jews throughout history, from the Crusades, to the blood libel from the murder of William of Norwich, to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Holocaust.

Becareful that your prejudices don't get the best of you and that you don't wind up poking yourself in the eye trying to point a finger.

Israel has soured Islamic-Jewish relations since the 20th century, but before this that relationship was marked by centuries of tolerance and cooperation. Do read up on Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) and the Ottoman Empire when you have time.

Edited by Shenango - 02 September 2017 at 2:24pm

"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE

Judaism's OWN SCRIPTURES censure the Jews for their lack of faith and uncooperativeness. If you're ready to call the Torah antisemitic then I will happily accept your characterization of Islam, as the Qur'anic and Hadith criticism of Jews are truly not original to Islam.

Finally, you seem to be coming around to my point! Yes, of course, Jewish law addresses Jewish social problems. You wouldn't proclaim "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor" unless some of your people were giving false testimony. That is totally different from "Don't be like the Arabs giving false testimony against their neighbor"; that would be racist! Muhammad had no reason to proclaim anything that didn't address a problem in his own society. And are you saying that it is coincidental that he reveals these verses during a period when he was in conflict with the Jewish tribes of Madinah? For me, this the most compelling proof that the Qur'an was authored by a man. Allah would not make this mistake.

Originally posted by Shenango

Jesus (AS) himself accused the Jews of killing and stoning their prophets in the New Testament.

I don't know what this specifically refers to. False claims of prophethood were considered serious crimes, justified, wouldn't you agree? And I doubt that any claimant would be able to satisfy a court of his claim. I don't see a point here beyond the harshness of Biblical punishments.

I can see why Jesus and Muhammad would be worried by how prophet-claimants were treated.

Originally posted by Shenango

Israel has soured Islamic-Jewish relations since the 20th century, but before this that relationship was marked by centuries of tolerance and cooperation. Do read up on Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) and the Ottoman Empire when you have time.

Most reports I've read agree that Jews were better treated, but never treated as equals, in Muslim lands than in Christian lands. In both regions, violent persecutions were sporadic and during most periods the Jews were able to live their lives as second class citizens and go about their business. The migration of European Jews into the Ottoman Empire didn't begin until the end of the 19th Century when the violence in Europe became unbearable.

What is most relevant is the beginning: how Muhammad and his immediate followers treated Jews and others who refused to accept the new religion, since this recorded in scriptures and there is no getting around what the scriptures say. I wish this wasn't the case and we could just forget about this frightful period; but we can't. The Muslims won't let us! The Qur'an is the basis of the non-Muslim as second-class citizen model and there's no return to that.

Men do you harm either because they fear you or because they hate you.

I don't know what this specifically refers to. False claims of prophethood were considered serious crimes, justified, wouldn't you agree? And I doubt that any claimant would be able to satisfy a court of his claim. I don't see a point here beyond the harshness of Biblical punishments.

There are false claims, and there are false accusations, charges, and testimonies.

There is also concealing of the truth, and confounding truth with falsehood, NB.

Allah (exalted be He) is most knowing of who is a seeker of the truth, and He is most knowing of the weight of every single thing every single soul utters and does, whether good or evil.

"And they wronged Us not, but they were [only] wronging themselves."

"Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves."

"But those who wronged among them changed [the words] to a statement other than that which had been said to them. So We sent upon them a punishment from the sky for the wrong that they were doing.

Whoever comes [on the Day of Judgement] with a good deed will have ten times the like thereof [to his credit], and whoever comes with an evil deed will not be recompensed except the like thereof; and they will not be wronged."

Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom's weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace upon the messengers. And praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds. 37:180-182

I was challenging Shenango's statement "Jesus (AS) himself accused the Jews of killing and stoning their prophets in the New Testament."

Which prophets? What was their claim to prophethood? Where is the evidence that the Jews killed them and that the killing was unjust (given that the law is for false prophets to be sentenced to death in these religions)?

Men do you harm either because they fear you or because they hate you.

Muhammad had no reason to proclaim anything that didn't address a problem in his own society.

Maybe not in your book, he doesn't. But for someone launching what was to become a universal religion, there is good reason. That the Jews were disobedient to God is of interest to him even if his followers (Muslims) aren't because he's giving them an example of a model to avoid.

Israel/the Jews represent a sort of forerunner to both Islam and the Christian Church. In the Qur'an Israel is presented as the first model of the Godly community, and ultimately goes awry. The Muslims are supposed to be the Godly community that gets it right, and this is alluded to in many places in the Qur'an. In Christianity, the Church sees itself in a similar position, superseeding Israel after their numerous let downs.

Originally posted by Non Believer

And are you saying that it is coincidental that he reveals these verses during a period when he was in conflict with the Jewish tribes of Madinah?

Verses establishing a pattern of Jewish disobedience to God are seen very early in the Qur'an. There is an allusion to their disobedience in Surah 1:7...the first full surah to be revealed, very early in the Meccan days back when the Muslims barely had any conflict with the pagan Quraish, much less the Jews.

By the way, it was never an ethnic thing, like Jews vs. Arabs. When Jews are referred to in the Qur'an, it is their religious identity that is in view.

Originally posted by Non Believer

I can see why Jesus and Muhammad would be worried by how prophet-claimants were treated.

Jesus (AS) is unique in the Christian story as the only prophet the Jews attempted to kill for claiming to be God, if you believe Christians that is. I'm not aware of a single other case like his, and Christians won't point to any.

If there's any reason to kill a prophet claimant, I could not think of a better reason to do it than that he/she claimed to be God. Judaism's position on idolatry has always been clear, and anyone else besides Jesus (AS) who would have claimed to be God would have met the same fate Christians and Jews believe he did.

So here's an example of how the logic of the Christian story breaks down. Jesus (AS) was supposedly executed for a valid crime which he readily confessed to, for which the penalty is death. So something is amiss here, and the choices are stark. Either:

1. Jesus (AS) never claimed to be God
2. The Jews were misinterpreting their laws about idolatry and humans claiming to be God all along.

There's no two ways about it. Ask a Christian to explain this and they will look at you like you're crazy. This is what I was talking about earlier and their logic breaking down.

Originally posted by Non Believer

In both regions, violent persecutions were sporadic and during most periods

This may be true, but there is still a difference. In the Islamic world there has never been any mass or calculated extermination effort, half-baked as one might have been, such as the Crusades and the Holocaust. So it's kind of ironic you still wave that hadith of the Jewish vs. Muslim battle at Armageddon at us at every opportunity, despite the fact it has clearly not been interpreted your way over the long centuries. Do you find that expectation meets reality there? Or is that you telling us (yet again) what we ought to believe based on your interpretation of our texts?

Originally posted by Non Believer

The migration of European Jews into the Ottoman Empire didn't begin until the end of the 19th Century

They were welcomed into the OE starting in 1492 upon their final expulsion from Catholic Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella. They arrived by the boatloads soon thereafter.

Edited by Shenango - 04 September 2017 at 6:21pm

"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE

You seem to have danced around the question. Would you like to summarize precisely what is meant by:

"Verily the people before you were destroyed only because of their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their Prophets.”

There is a whole lot of evasion in your post which I will just ignore. I can't ignore this, however:

Originally posted by Shenango

So it's kind of ironic you still wave that hadith of the Jewish vs. Muslim battle at Armageddon at us at every opportunity, despite the fact it has clearly not been interpreted your way over the long centuries.

I presume you are referring to the Hadith found here?

http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html

Originally posted by THE CHARTER OF THE HAMAS/THE CHARTER OF ALLAH Article Seven

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)

We are not the ones waving this Hadith. We are hearing of it being preached in sermons even in North America; and Muslims making vain excuses for it and offering deceptive explanations. Shameful!

Since you are unaware that Islamic texts are being used by hate groups, let me quote a few more:

Originally posted by THE CHARTER OF THE HAMAS/THE CHARTER OF ALLAH

They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the Prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress. Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111

And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. 'Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper. Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120

The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow. (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill. (told by Bukhari and Muslim).

Who so on that day turns his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly has incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end. Sura 8 (al-Anfal - Spoils of War), verse 16

We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loves not corrupters. Sura V (Al-Ma'idah - the Table spread), verse 64

O Ma'adh, Allah is going to grant you victory over Syria after me, from Al-Arish to the Euphrates, while its men, women, and female slaves will be dwelling there until the Day of Resurrection. Those of you who chose [to dwell in one of the plains of Syria or Palestine will be in a state of Jihad to the Day of Resurrection.

I'm sorry to have danced. I meant no such thing. What was the question? Was there a question in there?

Originally posted by Non Believer

Would you like to summarize precisely what is meant by: "Verily the people before you were destroyed only because of their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their Prophets.”

I'm not repeating myself.

Originally posted by Non Believer

We are not the ones waving this Hadith. We are hearing of it being preached in sermons even in North America; and Muslims making vain excuses for it and offering deceptive explanations. Shameful!

Yes, you are the ones waving it. I got into an e-mail fistfight a few years ago with a secular Jewish girl who wanted that hadith removed from her college's servers for "promoting hate" simply because the MSA had posted the translation of the hadith volume in question that contained it. Ridiculous rubbish. You guys have to get over the shock factor. To show her how much I cared about her feelings I think I made a monetary donation to the USC MSA at the time.

I want to make this really crystal clear to you: I am not backing down from my claim that inspite all that you quoted that Muslims have no long-term beef with Jews or Christians.

Hamas is not a hate group, and if you lived in Gaza, I'd think you'd object slightly to such a characterization of them. They are a Palestinian political movement that uses religion to inspire their cause. One thing that Westerners don't appreciate is that Arabs in general lack the political correctness that is normative in the West, and this can cause great misunderstanding. They will use the term "Jews" but be referring mainly to Israeli Jews or the State of Israel but instead are regularly misunderstood as generally anti-Semitic in the manner of Hitler and the Protocols.

Imams from that part of the world then occasionally get invited to come to the US/Europe/Canada to give a sermon in a mosque and retain that political incorrectness, which is in turn exploited by people like yourself to try and make Muslims out to be generally anti-Semitic.

The misunderstanding it can lead to is very unfortunate, and we have to do better to prevent these kinds of incidents, I couldn't agree more. And since Islam is a political faith, the Palestinian political struggle against Israel has been 'Islamicized', and been made one of Muslims against Jews. It can be extremely difficult for Western non-Muslims, particularly unknowledgeable ones, to disentangle one from the other. But don't take it from me, NB. Look back through the history books, Islamic ones, I mean. This phenomenon is unknown prior to Zionism and the establishment of Israel.

I've been on the bike a few times around town, NB. Your objections/observations are not particularly astute, and certainly the furthest thing from new.

"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE

This is how a post World War II Islamic scholar describes the Jews of Medina prior to Muhammad's arrival. It uses the same sort of lies that the Nazis used.

Notwithstanding this, they had not lost their identity among the Arabs and had kept their Jewish prejudice alive most ardently and jealously. They had adopted superficial Arabism because they could not survive in Arabia without it.

On the contrary, we see that they prided themselves upon their Israelite descent and racial prejudices. They called the Arabs the Gentiles, which did not mean illiterate or uneducated but savage and uncivilized people. They believed that the Gentiles did not possess any human rights; these were only reserved for the Israelites, and therefore, it was lawful and right for the Israelites to defraud them of their properties by every fair and foul means. Apart from the Arab chiefs, they did not consider the common Arabs fit enough to have equal status with them even if they entered Judaism. No historical proof is available, nor is there any evidence in the Arabian traditions, that some Arab tribe or prominent clan might have accepted Judaism. However, mention has been made of some individuals, who had become Jews. The Jews, however, were more interested in their trade and business than in the preaching of their religion. That is why Judaism did not spread as a religion and creed in Hejaz but remained only as a mark of pride and distinction of a few Israelite tribes. The Jewish rabbis, however, had a flourishing business in granting amulets and charms, fortune telling and sorcery, because of which they were held in great awe by the Arabs for their "knowledge" and practical wisdom.

Economically they were much stronger than the Arabs. Since they bad emigrated from more civilized and culturally advanced countries of Palestine and Syria, they knew many such arts as were unknown to the Arabs; they also enjoyed trade relations with the outside world. Hence, they had captured the business of importing grain in Yathrib and the upper Hejaz and exporting dried dates to other countries. Poultry farming and fishing also were mostly under their controls They were good at cloth weaving too. They had also set up wine shops here and there, where they sold wine which they imported from Syria. The Bani Qainuqa generally practiced crafts such as that of the goldsmith, blacksmith and vessel maker. In all these occupations, trade and business these Jews earned exorbitant profits, but their chief occupation was trading in money lending in which they had ensnared the Arabs of the surrounding areas. More particularly the chiefs and elders of the Arab tribes who were given to a life of pomp, bragging and boasting on the strength of borrowed money were deeply indebted to them. They lent money on high rates of interest and then would charge compound interest, which one could hardly clear off once one was involved in it. Thus, they had rendered the Arabs economically hollow, but it had naturally induced a deep rooted hatred among the common Arabs against the Jews.

The demand of their trade and economic interests was that they should neither estrange one Arab tribe by befriending another, nor take part in their mutual wars. But, on the other hand, it was also in their interests, that they should not allow the Arabs to be united and should keep them fighting and entrenched against each other, for they knew that whenever the Arab tribes united, they would not allow them to remain in possession of their 1large properties, gardens and fertile lands, which they had come to own through their profiteering and money lending business.

Men do you harm either because they fear you or because they hate you.

This is how a post World War IIIslamic scholar describes the Jews of Medina prior to Muhammad's arrival. It uses the same sort of lies that the Nazis used.

The bolded part tells it all. Remember my point?

Originally posted by Shenango

Look back through the history books, Islamic ones, I mean. This phenomenon is unknown prior to Zionism and the establishment of Israel.

It is ironic, by the way, that you chose to post a quote from Al-Maududi, given that his wife was ethnically Jewish and born to Jewish parents. If anything you just inadvertently bolstered my point that Muslims hold no natural animus towards Jews, be it ethnic, racial, or otherwise. Do you see now why I would not stand down from that fact? I bet you would not have posted it had you known that fact.

I am not agreeing with his statements; they remain solely his opinion. But I find his rhetoric comparatively soft with Nazi-like propaganda, which was rooted in ethnic and racial superiority of Aryan races over Jewish blood.

"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE

And among the People of the Scripture is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount [of wealth], he will return it to you. And among them is he who, if you entrust him with a [single] silver coin, he will not return it to you unless you are constantly standing over him [demanding it]. That is because they say, "There is no blame upon us concerning the unlearned." And they speak untruth about Allah while they know [it]. (3:75)
------------------------------------

This was not merely the misconception of the ignorant mass of Jews. Their religious teaching was the same and the legal doctrines of their accepted religious authorities and jurists reflected this idea. With regard to injunctions on loans and interest the Bible makes a clear distinction between an Israelite and a non-Israelite (Deuteronomy 15: 1-3; 23: 20).

It is stated in the Talmud that if the bullock of an Israelite injures the bullock of a non-Israelite the former is not liable to any penalty, but not vice versa. Similarly, it is laid down that if anyone finds an unclaimed article he should enquire amongst the people who live nearby. If they are Israelites he should announce his find; if not he may keep it without saying anything further.

Rabbi Samuel Ishmael says that if a dispute between a Jew and a Gentile is brought before a judge, he should base his verdict on Jewish law if it is favourable; if the law of the Gentiles goes in favour of the Jew he should justify his judgement by saying that the Gentile has no valid ground for complaint since judgement was given according to his own law. Even if both laws are unfavourable towards the Jew the judge should still find some pretext for deciding in his favour. Rabbi Samuel says that benefit should be derived from every mistake the non-Israelite may make. (See Paul Isaac Hershon, Talmudic Miscellany, London, 1880, pp. 37 and 210-21.)

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum